Skip to main content

PS on indexicalism (and the logic of supplement)

Following the previous post, and considering the project I sketched in October, maybe indexicalism (see here for a broad idea of what it is) is less a (paradoxico-)metaphysics or a cosmology of incompleteness than a Logic in the sense of Hegel's Logik, formal but thoroughly inhaltliche. It is perhaps another Logic of being and its exterior, of borders and its determinations etc. It is a different Logic of negation and concrescence. Maybe it should be developed as in equally paraconsistent way but where a thorough rejection of the principle of explosion (that from contradiction anything can be derived) comes from the work of the Other, of the Outside - through supplement.

I have been developing a logic of supplement with a group of people; our starting point is to study, in the way of universal (or abstract) logic, thoroughly non-monotonic formal systems, we call them antimonotonic. In this system, every argument is non-monotonic. As a consequence, no addition can be made to any valid argument - and nothing can be removed from it. These systems are in a sense minimal but not to confuse with the minimal (intuitionistic) logic proposed by Johansson, we call them clean logics. It is easy to see that to clean a logic is a form of paraconsistetization, as developed by my colleague and co-author Alexandre Costa-Leite, Edelcio de Souza and Diego Dias (here is their 2016 paper). This is because if we add a contradiction to the premisses of any valid argument, it derives nothing - instead of deriving anything. Clean logics are paraconsistent in the strong sense that nothing makes the system explode.


Popular posts from this blog

Giving Birth

This is a month of giving birth: 1. On the first day of the month (my birthday) I sent out my book BUG (Being Up for Grabs) to publisher. A birth-giving moment. 2. On the forth, we started the Journal, called Journal of Questions. It is a Jabèsian and Jarryian endeavor that intends to reflect in many languages about the gaps between thought and translation. It will be available soon. 3. On the 10th, day before yesterday, offspring Devrim A. B. was born. Her name means revolution in Turkish and is a roughly common name. She's very attentive and concentrated - especially on her own fingers that she learned to molest in her youth during her womb months. She was gestated together with BUG. Hope the world enjoys.

My responses to (some) talks in the Book Symposium

Indexicalism is out: l   The book symposium took place two weeks ago with talks by Sofya Gevorkyan/Carlos Segovia, Paul Livingston, Gerson Brea, Steven Shaviro, Chris RayAlexander, Janina Moninska, Germán Prosperi, Gabriela Lafetá, Andrea Vidal, Elzahrã Osman, Graham Harman, Charles Johns, Jon Cogburn, Otavio Maciel, Aha Else, JP Caron, Michel Weber and John Bova. My very preliminary response to some of their talks about the book follows. (Texts will appear in a special issue of Cosmos & History soon). RESPONSES : ON SAYING PARADOXICAL THINGS Hilan Bensusan First of all, I want to thank everyone for their contributions. You all created a network of discussions that made the book worth publishing. Thanks. Response to Shaviro: To engage in a general account of how things are is to risk paradox. Totality, with its different figures including the impersonal one that enables a symmetrical view from nowhere

Hunky, Gunky and Junky - all Funky Metaphysics

Been reading Bohn's recent papers on the possibility of junky worlds (and therefore of hunky worlds as hunky worlds are those that are gunky and junky - quite funky, as I said in the other post). He cites Whitehead (process philosophy tends to go hunky) but also Leibniz in his company - he wouldn't take up gunk as he believed in monads but would accept junky worlds (where everything that exists is a part of something). Bohn quotes Leibniz in On Nature Itself «For, although there are atoms of substance, namely monads, which lack parts, there are no atoms of bulk, that is, atoms of the least possible extension, nor are there any ultimate elements, since a continuum cannot be composed out of points. In just the same way, there is nothing greatest in bulk nor infinite in extension, even if there is always something bigger than anything else, though there is a being greatest in the intensity of its perfection, that is, a being infinite in power.» And New Essays: ... for there is ne